Questions Gallipolis.pdf

RFQ 36C24524Q0414 (Gallipolis, OH CBOC Ambulance Services)

RFQ Questions

1. Please clarify the correct specific Quote due time, noting that SF 1449, Block 8 specifies 3:00 pm

“EDT,” while RFQ Section E.2, at 59, states that “Proposals[?] are due by “3:00 PM EST” (emphasis added). Block 8 should read Offers due at 3pm local me E.2 at 69 reads 3pm EST

2. Please extend the Quote due date to not less than ten (10) calendar days after VA provides complete answers to offerors’ Questions, given the wide-ranging scope and number of Questions and the resulting impact on offerors’ Quotes.

3. RFQ Section B.2, at RFQ pg. 5: Please clarify and/or correct the reference here, and elsewhere within the RFQ, to “Gallipolis, WV” to read “Gallipolis, OH” (see PWS 5.2.2, at RFQ pg. 18). PWS has been updated.

4. RFQ Section B.2, at RFQ pg. 5: What is intended by the “NOTE” that “This fixed price IDIQ is for Gallipolis [OH?] CBOC,” and what specifically does this mean in regards to defining or limiting the services that can be ordered or performed under the proposed Contract.

Coverage area would be for the general geographic area around the Gallipolis, OH CBOC.

5. RFQ Section B.3, PWS 1, at RFQ pg. 6, defining the “Purpose” of the PWS, states that “The Herschel ‘Woody’ Williams VA Medical Center (hereafter HMWWVAMC), its associated Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs), and affiliated healthcare clinics require contracted non-emergency ambulance transportation services” (emphasis added); is the NOTE in RFQ Section B.2, to the effect that “This fixed price IDIQ is for Gallipolis [OH?]” intended to narrow the relevance of this “Purpose” statement, and the concommitted Contractor obligation to provide services to only those Veteran and beneficiaries directly associated with the Gallipolis, OH CBOC and its affiliated healthcare clinics?

Coverage area would be for the general geographic area around the Gallipolis, OH CBOC. Runs may not be to the Gallipolis, OH CBOC and could be to the Medical Center or other providers authorized who are not located at a VA facility.

6. Can covered services not directly associated with the Gallipolis, OH CBOC or its patients be ordered under the proposed Contract? Yes

7. What are the distinctions, if any, between the geographic scope of the services that can be ordered, and that the awarded contractor must perform, under the proposed Contract pursuant to the instant RFQ vs. those that can be awarded and must be performed under the proposed contract that is the subject of RFQ 36C24524Q0416 (Lenore, WV CBOC ambulance services), which appears to incorporate an essentially identical PWS? The PWSs are identical, but the coverage area would be for the general geographic area around the Gallipolis, WV CBOC. See updated PWS

8. Would the proposed Contract permit VA’s ordering of, and require the Contractor to perform, ambulance transportation services between the Huntington VAMC and one of its patient’s homes in the same County as the Huntington VAMC, where neither the patient nor the related medical services has anything to do with the Gallipolis, OH CBOC or any of its locally-associated facilities? Under this contract the VA will not request nor will the contractor be required to perform, ambulance transportation services between the Huntington VAMC and one of its patient’s homes in the same County as the Huntington VAMC.

9. RFQ Section B.1.3.c, at RFQ pg. 4 – what is the intended frequency of invoices submission? Monthly in arrears

10. RFQ Section B.2, at RFQ pg. 5 – please identify the analyses undertaken and bases for the calculation of the stated $4.8M maximum dollar value for the proposed Contract, and does such amount include services for other than patients of the Gallipolis, OH CBOC? The $4.8m dollar ceiling is based off the

IGCE for usage at the Gallipolis location.

11. RFQ Section B.2, at RFQ pg. 5 – does the stated $4.8M maximum Contract value include any FAR

52.217-8 performance extension option up to six months? No, this contract doesn’t have opons. It’s a 5 year IDIQ type contract.

12. PWS – if this “fixed price IDIQ is for Gallipolis [OH] CBOC (RFQ B.2, at RFQ pg. 5), why is the PWS focus repeatedly on the Hershel ‘Woody’ Williams VA Medical Center,” and not on the Gallipolis, OH CBOC

(see, e.g., PWS Sections 2, 4.2. 4.5.1.9.3, 4.5.2.2), and why are there no comparable provisions addressing the Gallipolis, OH CBOC? The Hershel “Woody” Williams VA Medical Center is the main facility and where the requests will be coming from, the Gallipolis CBOC is one of the satellite clinics.

The transports will either begin or end in the geographic area around the Gallipolis CBOC. The PWS has been updated to reflect location.

13. If the focus of this RFQ-envisioned Contract is the “Gallipolis (OH) CBOC,” as noted in RFQ Section

B.2, in what counties do the “Veterans served within this facility [as opposed to the Hershel ‘Woody’

Williams VA Medical Center] live[],” per PWS Section 2, at RFQ pg. 6? The Gallipolis CBOC is located at 323A Upper River Road, Gallipolis, OH. Veterans served within this facility lives primarily within the following counties: Gallia, OH, Jackson, WV, Mason, WV. There may be occasions where a

Veteran may live outside of but adjacent to these counties. See updated PWS.

14. Is this RFQ truly limited to “non-emergency ambulance transportation services,” and intended to exclude “emergency services,” as suggested by PWS Section 1, at RFQ pg. 6? Please note the inconsistent language in PWS 4.1 (and elsewhere throughout the RFQ), saying that “[t]he contractor shall provide Emergent, non-emergent Stretcher Transports, Basic Life Support (BLS), Advanced Life

Support (ALS), and Critical Care Transport (CCT) Tier 1`,2, and 3 ambulance services” (RFQ at pg. 7;

emphasis added). Is emergency service included, or not? If not, please delete all references thereto throughout the RFQ. If emergency service is included, please consider adding CLINs for such, so as to distinguish pricing of emergency and non-emergency services in each ambulance service category.

The excluded emergency services would be 911 calls or other non-VA preauthorized calls from the community or elsewhere. Emergent services differ from non-emergent services only with respect to response me (30 minutes versus 60 minutes; see PWS 4.5.1.9.2.) and do not require a separately priced line item. Included emergent services would be calls for pick up at the Gallipolis CBOC to either a local community hospital or to the Hershel “Woody” Williams VA Medical Center which may be BLS or ALS. CCT would be in the instance of calls to transfer a Veteran from one community hospital to another where that level of care would be needed.

15. The PWS requires the provision of “Stretcher Transports” (PWS Sections 1, & 4.1.1). Please delete, revise or clarify this language here and throughout the RFQ, noting that West Virginia does not recognize of license the use of “stretcher vans.” Removed “Stretcher Transports” from PWS.

16. PWS Section 4.1.2, at RFQ pg. 7 – is the required VA Staff and equipment return trip to be billed and reimbursed as an “unloaded trip,” per CLINs 1004, 2004, 3004, 4004 & 5004? The return of equipment will be billed under the original run.

17. Is all actual allowable trip mileage to be reimbursed under the CLIN 1005, 2005, 3005,4005, & 5005 “Mileage” CLINs, with no mileage being included under the respective ambulance transport CLINs?

The first 35 miles are included in the respective ambulance transport CLINs. Updated PWS secon

4.9.2. Beyond the inial 35 miles is to be billed under CLINs 1005, 2005, 3005, 4005, & 5005.

18. PWS Section 4.2, 2nd sentence, at RFQ pg. 7 – While it is interesting to know this info for deliveries to the Hershel “Woody” Williams VA Medical Center, it might be more relevant for the RFQ to tell offerors comparable information for the Gallipolis CBOC, which purportedly is the focus of this RFQ;

please provide any relevant information as to Gallipolis. When patients are transported to the Lenore

CBOC, desnaon is deemed to be the clinic or service within the facility as instructed by VA Staff.

19. PWS Section 4.3.1.2, at RFQ pg. 8 – Given that the proposed Contract purportedly is a “commercial services” contract, and that the subject matter of this provision is regulated by the respective state and local government authorities, which, per WV OEMS, includes certifying not only personnel training, but also doing criminal background checks, please delete or justify the perceived need for this requirement. See FAR 12.302(c). VA has a right to ensure that all replacement personnel have the training, certifications, and licensing required under the contract. This is a requirement of the PWS.

This does not conflict with customary commercial practices referenced in FAR part 12.302 because that secon pertains to "terms and conditions" not the government's performance requirements.

This does not conflict with customary commercial practice referenced in FAR part 12.

20. PWS Section 4.3.1.2, 2nd Sentence, at RFQ pg. 8 – If 4.3.1.2 is to be retained in any format, Please detail (i) the intent, purposes, processes and timetable for and potential outcomes of the purported

COR “review,” as well as (ii) the appeal processes for challenging the same if the outcome thereof differs from the applicable state and local government processes. Again, please keep in mind that the proposed Contract is supposed to be a “commercial services” contract, and the subject personnel are ongoing commercial services providers, as distinct from being dedicated to VA services. See FAR

Part 12. Section 4.3.1.2 requires evidence that replacement personnel have the training, certifications, and licensing required under the contract. This is a requirement of the PWS. This does not conflict with customary commercial practice referenced in FAR part 12.302 because that secon pertains to "terms and conditions" not the government's performance requirements.

21. PWS Section 4.3.1.3, at RFQ pg. 8 – Given that the proposed Contract purportedly is a “commercial services” contract, and that the subject matter of this provision is regulated by the respective state and local government authorities, please delete or justify the perceived need for this new requirement, and particularly the burdensome (on both the Government and Contractor) provision of licenses to the COR. In the past, the contractor has been required simply to maintain copies of licenses and provide such to VA upon written request, which seems more than adequate to protect any legitimate VA interest, and is comparable to the more important PWS 4.3.1.4 CCTP certificates, which only “must be provided to the COR upon request.” Section 4.3.1.2 requires the contractor to provide evidence that replacement personnel have the training, certifications, and licensing required under the contract. While this may not have been required under certain previous VA contracts, those contracts do not establish customary commercial practices, as reference in the FAR.

22. PWS Section 4.3.1.4, at RFQ pg. 8 – Delete the references here (and elsewhere in the RFQ) to CCT I, II & III, as West Virginia does not recognize nor distinguish between these categories, and simply has a single certification for CCT. PWS has been updated to reflect: 4.3.1.4, CCTPs shall have met all state requirements for the er in which they are performing services in. Proof in the form of a current certificate for the successful completion of such must be provided to the COR upon request.

23. PWS Section 4.3.1.5, at RFQ pg. 8 – Please delete this provision, which would be unduly burdensome in a “commercial services” procurement, has never been needed or required in the past, and imposes new requirements over and above those imposed by the respective state and local governments and regulatory authorities, which, at least in West Virginia where OEMS already conducts background screenings, including criminal background checks, upon initial certification and upon recertification.

See FAR 12.302(c). To the extent these requirements are to be maintained in any format, please note, resolve, and clarify the apparent conflict between (1) the “Special Agreement Checks (SAC),” with fingerprinting, “level of access” specified in this Section, vs. (2) the different “National Agency Check with Written Inquiries” “level of background investigation” specified in PWS Section 12, at RFQ pgs

21-22. Given that the proposed Contract purportedly is a “commercial services” contract, and that the subject matter of this provision is regulated by the respective state and local government authorities, please delete or justify the perceived need for this requirement. FAR Part 12. The requirement for a contractor to provide evidence of its replacement personnel having the training, certification, and licensing required under the contract is not imposing new requirements "over and above" those imposed by the state and local governments. VA is requiring evidence that replacement personnel meet contracting requirements. State and local laws do not address whether a contractor needs to provide evidence of compliance with federal contracts.

24. PWS Section 4.3.1.6, at RFQ pg. 8 – Please delete or revise this provision, as the subject matter is already regulated by state law and implicitly covered elsewhere. There is no need for, or ability in a

“commercial services” procurement, to impose new requirements. See FAR 12.302(c). Federal contract requirements are not controlled by state law. This secon only requires evidence of compliance with contract requirements for replacement personnel. If an offeror has a problem with specific contract requirements, it should identity them.

25. PWS Section 4.3.1.2, at RFQ pg. 8 – Please delete this Section, which is unnecessary and imposes requirements beyond those contemplated by “commercial services” contracting. The subject, purportedly “commercial services” being acquired, are governed by state guidelines, as implicitly recognized in PWS Section 4.3.2.2 (“tested … in accordance with state guidelines”), and no additional

VA requirements should be imposed as to TB testing and procedures. Pertinently, West Virginia EMS does not presently require testing for TB. VA includes a TB testing requirement in all contracts where contractors may come into contact with patients. This is a PWS requirement. State law does not govern what a customary commercial practice is for ambulance transport contract performance work statements; it merely identifies minimum requirements that must be met for state certification. FAR

12.302 pertains to customary commercial terms and conditions; it does not apply to PWS requirements.

26. PWS Section 4.4.2, at RFQ pg. 9 – This Section should be deleted as superfluous, and, at a minimum, VA’s reserved “right to inspect the contractor’s equipment and vehicles” deleted, since such is governed and regulated by the West Virginia OEMS and, again, this is a “commercial services” contract, in which VA should not be superimposing its judgment or druthers. OEMS already inspects vehicles and supplies carried, and upon adding vehicles to the fleet before they hit the road. See FAR

12.302(c). VA always reserves the right to inspect a contractor's vehicles to ensure they are in compliance with state laws, rules, and regulations. VA also reserves the right to restrict use of such vehicles if they are not in compliance with contract requirements. These are PWS requirements. The fact that the state regulates the vehicles in no way establishes what VA may include in its PWS.

Customary commercial practice under part 12 pertains to terms and conditions.

27. PWS Section 4.4.4, 3rd Sentence, at RFQ pg. 9 – The third sentence should be deleted or modified to make clear that the awarded Contractor’s obligation to maintain and supply medication during transport is governed by and does not exceed the requirements of applicable state and local law and regulation. The 3rd sentence is intrusive and overbroad. Note also that the Contractor is not deemed to be a “Medical Control Authority.” Removed, see updated PWS

28. PWS Section 4.4.6, 1st Sentence, at RFQ pg. 9 – RFQ Section D, Attmt A, and the reference thereto in

PWS 4.4.4, must be deleted, and PWS 4.4.6 revised to simply require compliance with the respective

State EMS requirements, as set forth in the 2nd sentence of PWS 4.4.6, and consistent with standard

“commercial services” contracting parameters. See FAR 12.302(c). Removed, see updated PWS.

29. PWS Section 4.4.7.2, at RFQ pg. 10 – Please delete this provision, the topic of which is governed by

OEMS regulation. See FAR 12.302(c). To the extent anything is retained, please review and clarify such and revise particularly the 2nd sentence, which is incoherent as presently written. The language will be retained. OEMS regulations establish certain minimum requirements for certification; they do not govern what our PWS may include. FAR 12.302 pertains to customary commercial terms and condions; it does not apply to PWS requirements.

30. PWS Section 4.4.7.4, at RFQ pg. 10 – Delete this provision as the topic thereof is controlled and regulated by WV OEMS, and thus is covered elsewhere by the RFQ. The language will be retained.

See also FAR 12.302(c). Also, the reference to the Bureau of Mines appears curious, to say the least, as such is not standard industry commercial practice. The language will be deleted.

31. PWS Section 4.4.7.5, at RFQ pg. 10 – Delete this provision as superfluous and inconsistent with FAR

12.302(c). The qualifications of EMTs in West Virginia are governed by the OEMS, and compliance with such regulations are already governed by other provisions of the RFQ. Privacy Act and HIPAA training is addressed elsewhere in the RFQ. Updated, see PWS. Also, FAR 12.302 pertains to customary commercial terms and condition; it does not apply to PWS requirements.

32. PWS Section 4.5.1, at RFQ pg. 11 – It is presently understood that neither the Huntington VAMC or any its CBOCs currently use nor have any immediate plans to implement VetRide or comparable systems for invoicing, and they do not want HCFA 1500 forms, and have excluded the use of diagnosis codes or nature of illness codes, as VA contractors are not proving medical necessity, and are simply providing ordered transport. Please clarify and revise these requirements as appropriate. VetRide and HCFA 1500 forms will be a requirement going forward to comply with national guidelines.

33. PWS Section 4.5.1, at RFQ pg. 11 – Please specify the requirements & processes, including timeframe, for VA approval of alternative Transportation Software, as referenced in this Section. If other soware is to be used, it will be provided by the Department of Veteran Affairs.

34. PWS Section 4.5.1.d, at RFQ pg. 11 – Please clarify when, and how frequently (vs the past standard monthly is arrears) invoices are supposed to be submitted, particularly in view of the stated new requirement that “All invoice must be submitted within 30 calendar days of date of services ….” As stated in the PWS, monthly invoices must be submitted within 30 days, it doesn’t limit you on how many you can submit, payment will always be in arrears.

35. PWS Section 4.5.1.6, at RFQ pg. 13 – Please review, and consider substantially reducing, the stated requirement for the Contractor to have sufficient vehicles and personnel to provide services “for up to sixteen (16) simultaneous requests,” which is believed to be grossly overstated in view of past historical demand for the Gallipolis OH CBOC, particularly given the apparent intended exclusion of emergency transport, would lead to substantially higher costs, and is likely to substantially reduce competitive interest for this requirement. Done. See updated PWS.

36. PWS Section 4.5.1.7, at RFQ pg. 13 – Please review and provide a more realistic estimate of the expected estimated typical 35-45 weekday transports, which is believed to substantially exceed the historic utilization for the Gallipolis CBOC, particularly if emergency transports are excluded. Done.

See updated PWS.

37. PWS Section 4.5.1.9.2, at RFQ pg. 14 – Please delete this provision dealing with “Emergent Transport,” if, as stated in PWS Section 1, this RFQ is restricted to “non-emergent” transports. Emergency services would be 911 calls or other non-VA preauthorized calls from the community or elsewhere. Emergent services differ from non-emergent services only with respect to response me (30 minutes versus 60 minutes; see PWS 4.5.1.9.2.)

38. PWS Sections 4.5.1.9.3, 4.5.1.9.4 & 4.5.2.2, at RFQ pgs 14 & 15 – Revise these Sections to address pick-ups at the Gallipolis OH CBOC, vs. the Hershel “Woody” Williams VA Medical Center, since, per

RFQ Section B.2, the subject of the subject services is the Gallipoli OH CBOC. Done, See PWS.

39. PWS Section 4.8.2, at RFQ pg. 16 – Please revise this Section to require COR reciprocal notice to the

Contractor of (i) all complaints received by VA with respect to the subject services, and as to (ii) VA’s resolution of all Complaints and any incident investigations. No Charge.

40. PWS Section 4.9.3, at RFQ pg. 16 – Please clarify and explain the intent of this provision. Removed unloaded trip reference. A “no show” is defined as a transportation request which is cancelled aer the contractor has dispatched a vehicle, the vehicle is enroute, or has arrived at the pick-up location, and there is no longer a requirement for patient transportation; see PWS 4.5.2.1.1.

41. PWS Section 4.9.5, at RFQ pg. 16 – Please clarify this provision, as the cognizant VA billing offices have not been using VetRide or HCFA 1500. VetRide and HCFA 1500 forms will be a requirement going forward to comply with national guidelines.

42. PWS Section 4.9.5, at RFQ pg. 17 – Please clarify and revise appropriately the red-highlighted disclaimer at the top of pg. 17 referencing payment to a provider of “air ambulance transportation services,” as the proposed Contract relates exclusively to ground transportation services. Also, payment can only release liability to the extent of the payment made – i.e., a partial payment does not release VA’s liability for any residual unpaid amount(s) due. Please revise the disclaimer accordingly. Replaced air ambulance with ground ambulance. VA beneficiary would be the Veteran transported, not the VA.

43. PWS Section 5.1, at RFQ pg. 17 – Please clarify and revise the stated period of performance so as to comply with RFQ B.2, at RFQ pg. 5, which states that there is only a three-month base period being awarded now, and four future one-year options, which, necessarily, are not part of the present period of performance until actually exercised. Revised.

44. PWS Sections 5.2, at RFQ pg. 17 – Please clarify the stated “twenty-four (24) hours per day” service requirement, as the Gallipolis, OH (and other) CBOC is not even open 24 hours per day. Not all runs will be to the CBOC, some will be to approved community care facilities that may have different operang hours that the CBOC. It is not feasible to know and list other facility operang hours. 24 hours would encompass all potential needs.

45. PWS Sections 5.2 & 5.3, at RFQ pgs 17 & 18 – Please clarify and explain the interrelationship between the stated service requirement here – “to VA beneficiaries receiving care at the [stated] locations,” which include the Gallipolis, OH CBOC – and the RFQ’s highlighted Section B.2 that “This fixed price

IDIQ is for Gallipolis [OH] CBOC.” Among other things, are Sections 5.2 & 5.3 intended to say that VA can order and the Contractor is required to transport just Gallipolis CBOC patients receiving care at the various identified facilities, or is it actually intended that VA could order and require the

Contractor to serve all patients receiving care at any of the listed locations in Sections 5.2 & 5.3, regardless of whether the specific patient has any direct patient relationship with the Gallipolis

CBOC? This contact would be provide transport to patient who’s trip would either originate or end in the Gallipolis area.

46. PWS Section 5.2.3, at RFQ pg. 18 – Please clarify the scope of the intended services to or at the non-exclusive identified “Other VA Medical Centers, Hospitals, and specifically whether any services to or from these facilities are limited to patients of the Gallipolis, OH CBOC, or also include other patients having no relationship to and not receiving care from or under the oversight of the Gallipolis, OH

CBOC. This contract would be to provide transport to patients who’s trip would either originate or end in the Gallipolis area.

47. PWS Sections 5.2.3 & 5.2.4, at RFQ pg. 18 – What are the limits, if any, on the possible, but open-ended, “Other VA Medical Centers” and “Other Non-Va Medical Facilities and Community Care facilities?” Can these provisions be revised to at least limit such to Medical Centers and other facilities located within the WV, OH & KY tri-state area, so as to limit and make manageable the Contractor’s performance risks. While not common, a Veteran may need transport to an approved non-VA facility outside of the tri-state area.

48. PWS Section 6, at RFQ pgs 18-20 – Please delete this Section, which appears to violate FAR 46.202-1, stating that “When acquiring commercial products (see Part 12), the Government shall rely on contractor’s existing qualify assurance systems,” and that “[t]he Government shall rely on the contractor to accomplish all inspection and testing needed to ensure that commercial services acquired confirm to contract requirements before they are tendered to the Government.” In short, in commercial services procurements the Government is not allowed to impose new QCP requirements or QASP programs. See FAR 12.208. This is incorrect. FAR 46.202-1 states that: the government shall rely on contractors' existing quality assurance systems as a substitute for

Government inspection and testing before tender for acceptance unless customary market practices for the commercial product being acquired include in-process inspection. Any in-process inspection by the Government shall be conducted in a manner consistent with commercial practice.

49. PWS Section 6.1.1.5, at RFQ pg. 19 – Please further note, and clarify and reconcile, to the extent this provision is to be retained in any format, the discrepancy between (i) the “4 simultaneous transports” referenced here vs. (ii) the “sixteen (16) simultaneous transport requests” required in PWS Section

4.5.1.6, at RFQ pg. 13. Revised.

50. PWS Section 7, at RFQ pg. 20 – Please delete this Section, as well as RFQ Section D, Attmt B, as overly intrusive and exceeding permissible limits in a “commercial services” requirement, since these provisions are inconsistent with and exceed current state EMS and local government law and regulatory requirements, and are inconsistent with current industry practices in West Virginia and the other listed jurisdictions. Please note that the pandemic and public health emergency have long expired. Any substitute provision should simply reference and incorporate, as the RFQ does elsewhere, current local jurisdiction medical requirements (see, e.g., PWS Section 8.1, at RFQ pg. 20.)

See FAR 12.302(c). See previous comments. The VA determines its PWS requirement. FAR 12.302(c) pertains to terms and conditions

51. PWS Section 9.3, at RFQ pg. 21 – Contrary to PWS 9.3, there is no Wage Determination attached to

RFQ Section D, and the Wage Determination referenced there is not fully or correctly identified and no applicable Revision number and issuance date is specified. Wage determination will be attached.

52. PWS Section 10.1, at RFQ pg. 21 – Please clarify the coverage period for which the required insurance company certified coverage must be provided (e.g., the three-month base period), and revise the closing phrase currently reading that such coverage “may not be changed of [sic] canceled during the term of the contract” to match the language at the end of PWS 11.2 to the effect that “such coverage may not be changed or canceled unless 30 day advance written notice is provided to the Contracting Officer,” to conform with normal industry standards in this “commercial services” contract scenario.

PWS has been updated.

53. PWS Section 12.1, at RFQ pgs 21-22 – Delete this Section, except for the last paragraph dealing with identifiable health information, the Privacy Act and HIPAA, since personnel security is already governed by WV OEMS, and, in this “commercial services” context there is no need or ability to impose new standards exceeding standard industry standards and practices, particularly where VA has not previously found a need for or imposed such personnel security requirements, and the imposition of such new requirements would be burdensome and have a chilling impact on potential contractors’ ability to hire the necessary personnel. See previous comments. The VA determines its

PWS requirements. FAR 12.302(c) pertains to terms and conditions.

54. PWS Section 12.1, first sentence of the last paragraph, at RFQ pg. 22 – Delete or clarify & appropriately limit the first sentence of the last paragraph of PWS 12.1 to explicitly limit the documents that are deemed “property of the United States Government,” since the current categorization is overbroad and sweeps in normal “commercial services” business records that the

Contractor owns and would be required to maintain under pre-existing state and local law. Updated, see PWS.

55. PWS Section 12.1.2, at RFQ pg. 23 – Delete this paragraph in its entirety as the subject is governed and preempted, in this “commercial services” context, by West Virginia and the adjoining states and local governments EMS rules and standard industry commercial practices. See previous comments.

The VA determines its PWS requirements. FAR 12.302(c) pertains to terms and conditions.

56. PWS Section 15, at RFQ pgs 23-24 – delete this Section in its entirety, in this “commercial services” context, since the subject requirements are inconsistent with and exceed current state EMS and local government law and regulatory requirements, and are inconsistent with current industry practices in

West Virginia and the other listed jurisdictions. Any substitute provision should simply reference and incorporate, as the RFQ does elsewhere, current local jurisdiction applicable requirements (see, e.g., PWS Section 8.1, at RFQ pg. 20.) See previous comments. The VA determines its PWS requirements.

FAR 12.302(c) pertains to terms and conditions.

57. RFQ Section B.4, at RFQ pg. 26ff – Please review, clarify, and correct the estimated quantities, noting that, at present, the estimated quantities for the three-month Base Period CLINs are the same as for each of the corresponding 12-month Option Period CLlNs, which obviously is inconsistent and makes no sense. In doing so, please ensure that all stated estimated quantities accurately reflect the needs of patients of the Galipolis, OH CBOC, and not patients of other facilities. The quantities listed are just esmates, the task order could reflect an amount greater or less than what is listed on the IDIQ.

58. RFQ Section C.3(b)(2), at RFQ pgs 38-39 – Why is the max combination of orders limit set at $7M, when the entire Contract max. value is only $4.8M (see RFQ B.2, at 5)? Please review and revise appropriately. 7 million is incorrect, order limit should be 4.8 million. It will be updated when the contract is awarded.

59. RFQ Section C.11, at RFQ pg. 44, & C.12, at RFQ pg. 52 – Since the proposed Contract is a “commercial services” contract and the $4.8M stated Max Value does not exceed $6m, delete FAR 52.203-13.

“Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (NOV 2021), and the related C.12 Mandatory

Written Disclosures” Clause. See FAR 52.203-13 & FAR 3.1004(a), stating that the Code of Business

Ethics and Conduct Clause is to be included only where “the value of the contract is expected to exceed $6 million ….” Will be removed.

60. RFQ Section C.11, at RFQ pg. 49 – Since the RFQ (i) includes the standard FAR 52.22-41, “Service

Contract Labor Standards (AUG 2018)” Clause, (ii) clearly exceeds the Simplified Acquisition Ceiling, and (iii) contemplates a multiple years performance period, please include the FAR 52.222-44, “Fair

Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards—Price Adjustment (MAY 2014)” Clause, or some appropriate substitute therefor, or explain why not. (See FAR 22.1006(c)(2)). 52.222-44 will be checked once awarded.

61. Given the presence of four one-year extension options (see RFQ Section B.2, at RFQ pg. 5), please include the standard FAR “Options” clause, FAR 52.217.9. (See FAR 17.208(g).) This is a 5 year IDIQ contract.

62. Also, please include the required standard FAR 52.218-8, “Option to Extend Services Clause (NOV

1999)”? (See FAR 17.208(f).) This is a 5 year IDIQ contract.

63. RFQ Section C.13, at RFQ pgs 52-54 – Given that this is a “commercial services” procurement and the

RFQ implicates a wide variety of standard Contractor commercial operations, including personnel certification & training, vehicle maintenance & licensing, and equipment & medical supplies, much of which is regulated by state and local regulatory bodies and all of which also implicates non-VA commercial services, please clarify and explain the intended scope of this provision, and identify the records intended to be covered thereby, including explicitly identifying the “deliverables” encompassed by Subparagraphs 9 & 10, and the overbroad “all data and records produced as part of this contract” to which Subparagraph 10 attempts to assert VAMC ownership.

• These clauses are prohibiting contractors for using data created in the delivery of services under our contract for anything other than the delivery of services under this contract. We can not identify records or data created by the contractor; we can require that any records created are to the same standards that federal information is held to.

• Deliverables can also be any records or information transmitted with the patient.

64. RFQ Section C.13, at RFQ pgs 52-54 – Given the “Comptroller General Examination of Record” Clause

(RFQ Section C.11 (d), at RFQ 49-50) records retention requirements, as well as applicable state and local government records retention requirements, please clarify and revise the overbroad prohibition of the Subparagraph 9 language that the “Contractor shall not retain, use … copies of any deliverables,” and narrow the scope thereof to permit use and retention as required to perform the

Contract and comply with state and local laws and regulations. Contrast Subparagraph 8 of this provision, which explicitly authorizes creation and maintenance of records that are “specifically tied to or authorized by the contract.” The language has been reviewed and no conflict has been found.

65. RFQ Section C.13, at RFQ pgs 52-54 – Please specifically identify the “VHA-provided records management training” that essentially “all Contractor employees assigned to this contract” would be required to take, per Subparagraph 11 (at RFQ pg. 54), and state how and when such training will be provided or made available by VA, and consider whether such training could be limited to a smaller subset of employees. VA privacy and information security and awareness and rules of behavior training requirements is a training that will be provided for contractors, once they take this training, they will satisfy the records management training as it is included in the training.

66. RFQ Section C.13, Subparagraph 6, at RFQ pg. 53 – Delete the requirement for advance approval of any subcontracting of ambulance transportation services, as a time-consuming pre-approval process would essentially make subcontracting impracticable, since subcontracting is used primarily to meet time-sensitive VA transportation needs where regular contractor personnel are not readily or feasibly available. Note that, in all circumstances, the Contractor, as the prime, would remain fully responsible for performance and compliance with all Contract requirements. If not deleted, please revise and clarify the second sentence, which, as presently written, is confusing and ambiguous. Yes contractor must be pre-approved. Contractor can send a list of all potential subcontractors prior to service if there is a possibility of subcontracting. Once those contractors are approved the Prime can subcontract when there is a need.

67. Section D, Wage Determination, at RFQ pg. 64 – Please note that, notwithstanding several references throughout the RFQ as to the applicable Wage Determination being “attached,” there is no “attached”

Wage Determination here. Further, the “buried” identification of the “document” at RFQ pg. 64 (at the end of a totally unrelated document – Attmt B), is inaccurate (the abbreviated “15” vs. the correct

“2015”) and incomplete in that it does not identify the specific applicable WD Revision & issuance date, which is essential to offerors being able to ascertain and understand the applicable requirements. Please also note that the geographic coverage of the invoked WD is limited, and does not cover (i) any portions of Ohio (where the Gallipolis, OH CBOC is located), (ii) most of the WV &

Kentucky Counties identified in PWS Section 2.0, at RFQ pg. 6, and (iii) some of the facilities identified in PWS 5.2, at RFQ pgs 17-18. Please appropriately identify and attach all specific applicable WD

Revs. PWS will be attached for Gallipolis, county.

68. Please confirm that the VA intends to make only a single award under this RFQ. Yes, this will be a single award.

69. RFQ Section E.10(c)(1), at RFQ pg. 77 – Please clarify and explicitly state whether (i) the requested

Cover Letter is to be included within the specified Vol. I, or (ii) is intended to be a stand-alone separate document. The cover letter can be included with Vol I.

70. RFQ Section E.10(c)(1), at RFQ pg. 77 – Please clarify whether (i) the required signed SF 1449 & RFQ

Amendments should be included within the Vol. I, Technical Proposal, as appears to be intended under RFQ Section E.10(c)(1), or (ii) can be included in Vol. II, which appears more logical since the

SF 1449 includes the B.4 Price Schedule required to be submitted in Vol. II. The offer can submit the

1449 & RFQ with Vol I, or if its easier for the offer to submit the RFQ and 1449 separately, I will still accept that.

71. RFQ Section E.10(c)(1), Subfactor 2, at RFQ pg. 77 – Please (1) consider the need for requiring specification in Quotes of “the equipment for each operational ambulance” in view of pre-existing state regulatory requirements governing the same, and (2) clarify the desired specificity and detail required to be provided in any continuing requirement. Offer needs to conform with local state laws and regulations, the "operational ambulance has to conform to industry standards.

72. RFQ Section E.10(c)(1), Subfactor 4, at RFQ pg. 77 – Please (1) identify the desired “documentation identifying all licensed and certified EMT personnel, capable of performing both BLS and ALS duties,” and (2) state whether such language is intended to cover both (i) ambulance drivers, and (ii) EMTs.

Is a list sufficient, or is VA looking for copies of actual licenses & certifications (which would appear to be overly burdensome and overkill, particularly in view of the applicable Privacy Act requirements and limitations)? VA must ensure contractors are technically acceptable to provide these services, such request is required for this solicitation. Copies of the credentials are required.

73. RFQ Section E.10 – Why is past performance not included as an evaluation factor? See FAR 12.206.

Regulaon states, past performance need not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections.

74. Section 4.5.1.7 estimates number of transports per day ranging from 35-45 trips a day (or roughly

10,000 trips annually). However, The price/cost schedule estimates a total annual trip estimate of

715 (roughly 60 trips a month). Can a more accurate trip volume estimate for Gallipolis CBOC be provided? As for the solicitation, the offer should use the price/cost schedule for their quote, all quantities are just esmates, the task order will have an accurate amount for total annual trips for the location specified.

75. Page 13 section 4.5.1.6 requires the contractor have sufficient vehicles and personnel to provide services for up to sixteen (16) simultaneous transportation requests. Can you clarify your definition of “simultaneous transportation requests”? Does this mean the contractor must have resources available to field 16 transport requests called in at the same time or is the sixteen a combination of previously scheduled trip requests as well as additional add ins on a given day? PWS has been updated and this queson has been answered.

76. B.4 Price/Cost Schedule. Please define “Unloaded Trips” in 1004. 2004, 3004, 4004, and 5005. These clins will be removed. Unloaded trips will be removed from the PWS as well, see updated PWS.

77. Page 14 section 4.5.2.1.1 defines a “no Show” and details reimbursement amount per occurrence. However, there is no CLIN required for invoicing associated to No Show on the Price/Cost Schedule. Can a CLIN of NO SHOW be add? There is a clin, this will be billed under BLS, ALS or CCT. No-show reimbursement shall be based upon the base rate for the type of service requested (BLS, ALS, CCT) and the one-way mileage (BLS, ALS, CCT) accrued enroute to the pick-up location at time of cancellation.